F**king Anarchy

Posted by

On New Year’s Eve, the FA chose to publish the report that took them 10 days to type and proof. We all thought it would be comprehensive and so it was. A good 115 pages long. Then there was a search on internet to find the report in a PDF format, try to find if the report included a concise version and also to find some semblance of a mood to enjoy the NYE.

In the meantime, the internet exploded with the so-called journalists who claimed to have read it and held no punches in criticizing Liverpool FC and Luis Suarez. The English press has, unsurprisingly, found new lows to dive to. These journalists have shamed their honorable profession and if I say I have no respect for them whatsoever, I’d be understating. Their tabloidism has killed people when they have chased celebrity cars. They have destroyed reputations of people, even of cities and they are at it again. Every single one of them wants to take the moral higher ground without heeding to what’s happened. For their sake, let us assume that the report is correct. It also states that Luis Suarez is NOT a racist. Journalists like Martin Lipton and Oliver Holt choose to ignore the fact and state the opposite. First things first though, the report is based on ‘probabilities’ and not on ‘facts’. As much is admitted in the report itself. So, before dissecting the report, let us lay here what it actually says. It states that on ‘balance of probabilities’, it seems more probable, in their opinion, that Evra’s account is closer to what happened than Suarez’s. The likes of Martin Lipton have gone on to brand Suarez a racist based on the report. The report categorically denies it and so does the instigator of the episode – Patrice Evra.

I don’t blame the supporters of other clubs branding Suarez with all kinds of names. We’ve got a game to play with every team at least once during the course of next 5 months and Suarez, by far, has been our best player in 2011. Even without that part, it is always good to have a rival team in some sort of trouble, isn’t it? They anyway don’t know the intricacies or details of the case as well as we may be followed or researched or even thought about it.

Let’s focus on the report for a little bit and why is it not The Bible. Why, in fact, it is as flawed as the LFC supporters think it is. First of all, the commission worked on a basis of ‘balance of probabilities’ as against the standard of ‘guilty beyond reasonable doubt’. As they’ve admitted in the report, they were a ‘jury’ and thus the decision on the case would ultimately depend on who they felt is ‘more credible’. It is not right or wrong, true or false, one or zero or, in fact, credible or incredible but more or less credible. A case that would decide the reputation of a professional footballer should have given more weightage to evidence, wouldn’t you think? Despite such an appalling methodology, let’s give the commission some benefit of doubt. Let’s agree that if it were to function on the basis of ‘guilty beyond reasonable doubt’, proper, incontestable evidence would have not been present and since it was the prerogative of the accuser to prove, the case against Suarez was never likely to win. In order to have a fair trial, let’s tilt the balance of the incident to favor the accuser, shall we? Fair? Not so much but let’s live with it for now.

Some of you might have read the report and some of you would have read some summaries/opinions. Some of you on the other hand would have heard about the contents. Although it is unlikely, I tried to read the report with as much of an open mind as possible. The early parts of the report were not a pretty reading for me as an LFC and a Luis Suarez fan. As dreadful as the length of the 115 page document sounds, the further you go into the document the less is the dread and more is the disgust. Let me see how accurate my short summary is: The commission finds that Luis Suarez has more probability of saying what he is alleged to have said since he was nervous and changed his version and didn’t answer in monosyllables and that the version he told his teammates after the game had three extra syllables. Well, that’s certainly not the most just summary but injustice is what the entire report smells of.

Could it, by any chance, be possible that Luis Suarez was nervous at the time of giving his testimony? The commission says he may be but still thinks that his testimony was garbled and that he did not give straight answers.

Could it be possible that during the course of the game and right after it with emotions, adrenaline and so many other factors running high, one of them being humiliation after being alleged to be racist and because of hearing untoward things being said about his place of nativity and his sister’s anatomy, he could have clouded recollection of what happened and when he sits down later to revise what happened, he could have remembered more accurately?

Let me ask some other questions from another perspective-

Could it be possible that Liverpool FC were playing a cover-up but in doing so, they did not even rehearse their lines?

Could it be possible that Evra was racially abused by Luis Suarez and complained to the referee and when the referee did not hear it properly, he did not even repeat it? I mean it’s not as if Luis stole a pencil at school. Surely Evra knows racial abuse in intolerable and should be reported immediately. Why did he not make the referee acknowledge his complaint? (Later when Evra and Fergie complained to Marriner, Marriner remarked ‘Oh that’s why you were saying something about black’).

The commission found that Suarez’s case was less probable than Evra’s case because –

1. Luis Suarez changed a few statements regarding the time of the events

2. Comolli and Kuyt earlier remarked that they thought Luis had said “Por que, tu eres negro?” and not “Por que, negrito?” changing the meaning from ‘Why? Because you are black’ to ‘Why, Black?’. Even then there is confusion whether the initial thoughts included ‘eres’ or ‘es’.

3. Luis was ‘less composed’ during the testimony and did not give straight answers. That is to say that when he was asked a question, he would answer about question but not give a straight ‘yes or no’ answer.

4. The account that Suarez gave of the incident and the words that were exchanged were shorter than the conversation as detailed by Evra. Evra’s conversation was more in line with the video footage and ‘more probable’ to be the ‘closer’ account of what happened. It is to be noted here that Evra gave his testimony while looking at the screen.

As per the report, here is what Evra told his mates in the dressing room about the words Suarez used:

Valencia’s version: “Negro, no hablas conmigo”

Hernandez: “No voy a platicar contigo porque eres negro”

Anderson: “no hablo con negro”

And Nani couldn’t remember the exact words Evra said. Of course the three statements above are exactly the same, eh? Of course how Kuyt/Comolli versions differed by three syllables was more ‘inconsistent’ and the difference more implicating.

Evra complained to the commission that Suarez called him a ‘nigger’ but later changed that to Spanish ‘negro’ since Spanish doesn’t differentiate between ‘black’ and ‘nigger’. Evra’s initial complaint to the referee was ‘he called me a fucking black’ where as later the complaint was ‘he called me a fucking nigger’ and ultimately back to ‘black’. Very consistent allegation sir.

Then there is the small matter of information, transcripts, tapes of FA’s interview with Patrice Evra being held from Liverpool Football Club for about more than 3 weeks must be a very minor oversight.

During the course of the report the commission emphasizes that the burden of proof was on the FA and may be I didn’t pay much attention, I couldn’t find any ‘evidence’ in the report.

What the FA and the commission have done here is use some kind of bent logic called ‘balance of probabilities’ and estimates that Luis Suarez said things that Patrice Evra has alleged and using that subjective logic, has branded the player as racist forever despite proclaiming that he is not racist and the comments might have been ‘out of character’.

The rules of the code that were used pronounce judgement first have to find whether Suarez insulted Evra and then establish whether the insult was racist in any manner. Here are the rules:

Rule E3, with the sub-heading “General Behaviour”, provides as follows:

“(1) A Participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour.
(2) In the event of any breach of Rule E3(1) including a reference to any one or more of a person’s ethnic origin, colour, race, nationality, faith, gender, sexual orientation or disability (an “aggravating factor”), a Regulatory Commission shall consider the imposition of an increased sanction, taking into account the following entry points:

  1. For a first offence, a sanction that is double that which the Regulatory Commission would have applied had the aggravating factor not been present. For a second offence, a sanction that is treble that which the Regulatory Commission would have applied had the aggravating factor not been present.
  2. Any further such offence(s) shall give rise to consideration of a permanent suspension.
  3. These entry points are intended to guide the Regulatory Commission and are not mandatory.
  4. The Regulatory Commission shall have the discretion to impose a sanction greater or less than the entry point, according to the aggravating or mitigating factors present in each case.”

If Patrice Evra did indeed start the conversation talking about Luis Suarez’s sister “Concha de tu hermana, porque me diste in golpe”, how can that not bring the game to disrepute (specially since the statement is now well known) and not be tantamount to abusive and/or indecent and/or insulting words? It is also to be noted that all parties have agreed that this (or whatever else Evra’s version is) was the starting point of whatever transpired later. In that case, should this not be penalized first and everything that happened later shouldn’t only be seen as a by-product of this first offense?

Luis Suarez was not in an open stretch of field. He was in the opposition box waiting for a corner. There would have been at least eight Manchester United players in that box. How come nobody else heard even a part of the conversation? How can there be no other witness? If there are none, ain’t it a probability that the conversation mightn’t have happened in the first place?

Let’s say Patrice Evra did complain to referee about Suarez’s calling him a ‘fucking black’. Would he not have then also confided in a couple of his teammates during the game itself or was it too trivial an issue for him to do that? What is the ‘probability’ of him not doing that? If Luis did call Evra a ‘negro’ or ‘negrito’ or any other form of the word five or seven times, what is the probability of no one  else hearing it even once? It is not like Evra plays like a lone striker and is usually left alone in the opposition box with defenders like Suarez. On the contrary and based on historical evidence, Suarez is the one who is usually crowded by opposition defense. Would Evra have gone to the referee alone to complain about such a thing during the game? Would he not have sought support/empathy from his team-mates? That trivial an issue Patrice?

Even if I take out my LFC glasses for a minute, what this commission has done is that they have set a very dangerous precedent. Hence forth, if there is a altercation between two players of different races, one of them can use this precedent to get the other one penalized, branded, characterized for life.

Fathom this – If there is a verbal duel between two players of different races, can one of them not blame other for racist comments may be by changing a word like ‘slack’ or ‘wank’ or whatever else to ‘black’ from the conversation and then pop a couple of anti-anxiety pills during the interview in front of any commission?

Sad times indeed for a supporter of ‘the best league in the world’!

YNWA and thank you for the patience to read thru if you’ve reached here. As an afterthought, I might as well apologize for any incoherence in the article. The events make it such sad reading that I do not even wish to proof-read it.




  1. Great balanced article kaushal, but I’m afraid the lynch mob have had the noose ready for weeks now!

  2. Great read Kaushal.. Some excellent point.. I would like to add one.. In the statement Giggs says Evra told him Suarez called him black.. Why didn’t Giggs report this to the ref as was his duty as captain? IMO because it didn’t happen

  3. Beyond brilliant.

    One of the chief reasons, I feel, LFC stands by Suarez is the advance presumption of guilt by the media (Mirror) and the FA. In essence the FA gives Evra plenty of latitude in the benefit of doubt department, and presumes that the player whose witness account they discredited in 2008 is more credible.

    In this theory, there’s no onus to back up what Evra said, while the presumed guilty party, Suarez, has all to prove in his quest for innocence. This is one sad reading. If Suarez brought the English game into disrepute, I shudder to think what model citizens like Terry, Rooney and Cole have done for the EPL. Even more disturbing is what the FA have irreparably done to the image of this league.

    Suarez is not only to undergo an eight game ban and get fined 40k but he’s warned about his future conduct. How about one more baseless and proofless accusation in days to come? The precedent for that has already been set in this landmark case.

    I still find it unsurprisingly weird no one other than the Kop Nation finds it weird. Who knows tomorrow if MUFC will be on the receiving end of such a stupid decision, in the days when their executive no longer sit in the FA. A really sad day in football.

  4. Ironic,

    Comments from an Indian whose country was ruled by the Brits!
    Openly practice the Castes system which for some reason the darker people the lower down the social scale these comments are laughable.
    When Indians actually make in Football,as currently it’s believed by many that your weak and feeble and can’t play.
    When Indians make it in Football and start getting Paki comments and ‘I don’ touch COOLIES’ lets see how you respond

    1. Septimus the Racist leader of Libya(PRIVATE JOKE)!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      Most shocking thing in British Football is there are no Asian footballers after 50 years of Asian immigration! Are you blind to other cultures racism!

  5. halfway through the report and its exactly what u said the report is steaming with bias. Late ‘supposedly forgotten’ evidence, difficulty to stretch the date which was initially the 20th november to 24 november to 8th december, bias taking in the crdibility of suarez when evra’s dumps supposedly smell like roses. Neglecting the assessment of the word negro in assessment, evra being the one who started the debacle, evra being able to make his statements while seeing footage of the game (therefore claims being more accurate) suarez was not even given a chance. I am appalled by what i have read so far and it is past looking to reduce his ban but i am clueless as to what lfc can do cause honestly the case was handled badly by our legal team and what repercussions the fa can impose on our club must also be looked at. Anyway as a black man Luis Suarez i truly believe u are not racist and i support u every step of the way. YNWA!!!

  6. think you should represent suarez, 1st time someone has talked sense. spot on with the journalists as well. I know lots of managers, t.v pundits and press people know this is the biggest stitch up of the fa’s history, but they are all too scared to speak out because they will most certainly loose there own job’s or status eventually. Still cant believe the reasons they didnt ban rooney, cole and neville either for the blatant 2 finger gestures. Absoloute joke!!!….what worries me is, is it worth suarez staying in this country, because he is most definately branded a racist now, even though they are still saying he wasnt, and he will be attacked none stop for the most of his playing time at liverpool. sad really because as you said, yes he is the best player in the premiership. Such a sad state of affairs!!!!!

  7. It’s a F**king stitch up by Old Red Nose and His underlings at the For Alex AKA the FA. and I therefore rest my case, preferably with a concrete block in it on his f**king head.

  8. Nice article – pity the disgusting gutter press and broadcast media aren’t as balanced or intelligent … The latest muppets include Phil Thompson and Alan Green …. The club have to do the right thing here and go for the FA, and Demento who have deliberately undermined our club and an innocent man with NO FUCKING EVIDENCE … Just the accusers word … And probability … Fuck the FA and the stinking rotten press in this country – as rotten to the core as any lawless state on the basis of this – LFC MUST pursue this otherwise we are weak and compliant with everything wrong !

  9. Add to the above, the fact that the 2 language experts used by the FA both came not from South America, but from…….Manchester!
    Quelle surprise!

  10. Surely, these and other issues with this case makes it clear that the FA was biased against Suarez from the start.

    Which way forward.

  11. Great article. Really wish someone in the national press would write something a bit more balanced and fact based too – although they won’t because this story is toxic and nobody will put their head above the parapet.

    I have to say though I’ve no faith in any appeal. As shambolic as the initial process has been, it’s provided enough caveats for the FA to stick to the findings.

    Balance of probabilities standard used normally in civil cases isn’t sufficient when a man’s entire reputation is on the line. The Media also need to take note that the tribunal were charged with finding what was the more likely version of events, and had a higher burden of proof been required then LS could have come away the innocent party and this should be remembered (it’s not as if he’s been charged and the CPS are mounting a criminal case against him – and the reason being that there is insufficient evidence to bring a prosecution (unlike another footballer)).

    Also, very unhappy by all the commentators / lobbying groups urging LFC not to appeal – if LS and LFC feel they have not had a fair hearing then it is their right to choose whether or not to appeal, regardless of how sensitive a subject might be. That is how the legal system (of the FA version) works. Rulings are not sacrosanct and are often overturned.

  12. I fear luiz Suarez will driven out of this country. One mans word against another and evidence based on probabilities apparently is enough to convict someone? Didn’t know the law had changed. Apparently this can not even go to arbitration and Liverpool fc options of an appeal are very limited. I hope luiz can stay strong but I do fear for him.

  13. what do womens lib think of evras comments re Suarez sister – this is where we should be coming from

    1. “concha de tu mere” is a term used in Spanish speaking countries similar to how “f###ing hell” is used in the UK. It was not a personal attack.


    2. That may well be the case in the Spanish speaking world, howver we are in ENGLAND! dear boy and in England it’s offensive and should be punished as such.

  14. I’ve read lots of comments regarding the whole situation I can’t believe the way the FA have handled the whole situation. The amount of time they took to charge and arrange for the hearing and then use the balance of probabilities to possibly ruin someone career. It stinks, I’m just glad we don’t have capital punishment any more!!!

  15. Hi KuashL,
    Thanks for taking the trouble to write your piece.
    FA can start talking about morality when their pathetic CEO’s and appointed managers & captains stop screwing anything on two legs which does not belong to them.

    Never mind an appeal, can we take this matter to the highest possible court here or Europe?? We need to clear the name of beloved club as well as Luis Suarez. Tossing Whiskey Nose must be loving the shit that he has stirred up.

    I think we should also bring an a similar action against Evra, or do we need a member of the public to contact the police?!!


  16. we know the FA is the best supporter of manchester united so that we expect like this decision and that is not a new one. The judgement is full of one sided to help united and to see the bad season of our best club liverpool… I know the FA is always support united in every matches to win by referees and other means

  17. They had it down as an open and shut case from the off.proceeded then to cobble together,cajole and manipulate a guilty verdict.why has no national journalist even bothered to question the obvious holes in the verdict?

  18. how many of these comments are from die hard fans of lpool. i have nothing against football fans, infact i have supported the cause for justice for h.bro. however this racism issue is not being or has been correctly handled by lpool fc. the players should never have worn those t shirts. lpool fc should have found the facts and hit the appropriate authorities with this. back then they were supporting an alleged racist. they admit this by saying they didnt know the full facts. speaking to a fan they said they were only concerned about how many losses this will create. i fear this is clouding the judgement of many.

  19. 1. So you argue against the findings of the INDEPENDENT panel but are happy to accept that the panel in finding Suarez not be a racist IS true. ha ha ha ridiculous

    2. You are obviously one of these part time journo’s that has done NIL research. In ALL civil actions the finding is always based on the “balance of probabilities” only in criminal cases must the evidence be “beyond all reasonable doubt”. So you’re completely wrong there and as such your entire argument falls down.

    3. You have selectively produced a few exerts from the report which then gives a bias towards your argument – it’s hardly convincing and considering Dalglish, Kuyt and Commoli all lied in changing their statements to support Suarez you are again wrong.

    4. This is a hopelessly biased and incorrect article and totally in line with the hypocritical bunch you liverpool people are. Only you can assess such a report which ALL media across the board have labelled as detailed, independent and comprehensive as wrong. I suppose the entire Premier League, FA, all papers and TV are against you and all of them are wrong…..because you are always right eh.

  20. Great article!!

    The big proof for me that this is a stich-up is that such a serious matter is being dealt with internally. I think this is because the FA and everyone else involved know that this would never stand in court.

    Is it not “innocent until proven guilty”. I am sorry if I missed it but I don’t see any proof.

    I also laugh at the fact that they say that Evra is a more reliable character than Suarez despite the fact that Suarez supports many charities and campaigns worldwide against racism and, I believe, even runs a charity in South Africa supporting multi-racial football.

    Also, them saying that Suarez racially abused Evra but is not a racist looks like them trying to cover their ass.

    I also wonder if anything will happen to Evra for his comments which lets not forget, started the whole thing off. I highly doubt it though.

  21. I have just watched this video and report, and it shows the
    FA have obviously not done their home work properly


    Copy and paste this in to your browser.
    It shows the initial incident, and from this angle it shows Suarez did not kick Evra, so Evra really has no reason to ask why he was kicked.

    Has anyone else any other similar videos reports that conflict with the FA’s report.

    If you agree that this video shows the FA have missed a vital part of this saga, then
    please repost this video in as many places as possible to
    highlight why we rightly feel Suarez is being victimsed.

  22. For greater clarity, why didn’t they use Spanish speaking lip readers? I’ve read the report and you echo my thoughts to a tee.

  23. I have just watched this video and report, and it shows the
    FA have obviously not done their home work properly


    Copy and paste this in to your browser.
    It shows the initial incident, and from this angle it shows Suarez did not kick Evra, so Evra really has no reason to ask why he was kicked.

    Has anyone else any other similar videos reports that conflict with the FA’s report.

    If you agree that this video shows the FA have missed a vital part of this saga, then
    please repost this video in as many places as possible to
    highlight why we rightly feel Suarez is being victimized

  24. The FA is corrupt to the core,they even conived with the
    tory government to blame the liverpool fans for the hillsborough tragedy and did nothing to sheffield wed
    for not having a valid and up to date saftey certificate
    for the stadium,and who was part of the so called independent panel?the head of sheffield and hallam fa!
    pull out of the fa cup and fight this to the bitter end.

  25. So dave,with such a serious issue being decided on the lower standard “balance of probabilities”, it requires no witnesses and no hard evidence to punish? Surely rascism is a crime that should be tried in a court of law,after all that’s where john terry is going? What would be the standard of proof required to convict terry? Do they need more than balance of probability? Isn’t it the case that there is no evidence to speak of regarding suarez.that its even stretching the “balance of probabilities” standard beyond its limit?

  26. Firstly, what a well written article. Credit to you, Kaushal.

    Secondly, ‘Dave’, how was the panel independent? They’re three men representing an association on whose board sit season ticket holders of United.

    They chose to use white, middle-aged academics from the University of Manchester, neither of whom specialise in Uruguayan culture, linguistics and syntax.

    There is no evidence to support Evra’s allegations aside from his ‘bad mood’ which, to be fair to him, is a constant thing.

    No lip readers have found any cause to believe that Suarez is saying ‘blackie’ in the video evidence represented.

    Evra is shown to have dived in the build up to the confrontation, yet he is considered a witness beyond reproach.

    He has previous for racial antagonism.

    Need I go on?

    Honestly, get on your bike lad. Your United flavoured trolling isn’t going to win you any friends around here.

  27. Let us look at some key issues;

    1. Evra made an allegation of racist remarks against Steve Finnan during 2006 – unsubstantiated.

    2. In 2008, following a match, Evra attacks a Chelsea Steward for alleged racist remarkis – unsubstantiated

    3. Several Manchester United players gave testimony that Evra was angry following the match in question and is not usually angry after matches (I refer you to 2 above)

    4. Evra was found to be a more reliable witness. The Commission knew of the incidents at 1 and 2 above but did not consider these in terms of credibility ‘because nobody asked them to’.

    5. Evra gave evidence while watching video footage of the incidents

    6. The Commission said that Evra’s account more closely matched the video than did Suarez’s (who did not give evidence while watching the video).

    7. Evra admitted to starting the confrontation.

    8. The Commission rejected Suarez claims that putting his hand on Evra’s head was concilliatory.

    9. Evra thre Suarez’s hand away aggressively.

    10. Suarez admitted using a word once which in hindsight he has said he will not use again but his argument is that it is acceptable in south American culture.

    11. Evra admitted using offensive terms regarding Suarez’s sister and also threatened to punch Suarez.

    Put that altogether with the ‘evidence’ in this article and you have a kangaroo court. The report is not so much an objective assessment of an arbiter but a prosecution document.

    Now I do not condone racism. If Suarez admitted using the word once and understands it is not accpetable then on the basis that the test is objective and that the Commission and Evra both accept that Suarez is not racist, then a two match ban should suffice. The fA needs to get tough on racism, as do UEFA and FIFA (penalty for monkey chants amongst crowds ??) They have chosen to be tough on racism in the wrong way and in the wrong case.

  28. In Malaysia we call it “Puki Mak”. The FA is rtten to the core. Me, Ashfah dont love the FA.
    , let alone “Kunkit”.

  29. The quicker LFC get a representative or two on the FA board, the better. However this saga ends, Suarez’ reputation has been ruined forever.

  30. I am a Liverpool Fan. And I am sick of people giving out biased reports. I am not saying this is one, merely expressing my disgust at it. Now, what I have got to say is this. If the FA had accepted Evra’s version which apparently is that Suarez said I do not talk to blacks etc, now if they had accepted that, that is sureshot a racist comment and would have been labelled Luis as a racist. I think the fact that FA accepts that he is not racist is because the have neglected Evra’s version as well, as explained above, or else would have branded Luis a Racist, but I think Luis is banned coz he admitted to use the word Negro. Now its important to note that at the end of the report they mention that they asked Luis not to speak the word Negro again on a football pitch in england. Could that be the reason? Possible that he was banned for that rather than accepting Evra’s word. They probably banned him coz they interpreted his acceptance of use of the word as Racist in their country. Now, if I were suppose to call another Indian in out country as a Monkey coz he has a face that resembles the creature somehow, that will not be taken as Racism, but I cannot do that in England, I should know better. Luis may have been booked for accepting use of Negro rather then coz of accusations of Evra on the first incidents.

    1. I would welcome your disgust if you would have read the report. The report says that Evra’s version are more likely to have occurred. They say, it is more probable that Suarez did use racist language. They say, that he didn’t say ‘negro’ once but seven times. Moreover, the only concession they’ve made is that they believe it is not Suarez’s character to be racist and he behaved ‘out of character’ in using those terms.

  31. It’s unbelievable how hard done by Liverpool fans think they and their team are, and ridiculous as to why you think that the FA are corrupt as well as all the tabloids – get over yourselves

  32. Excellent piece Kaushal.
    The whole situation stinks and I think the F.A. have damaged the image of English Football more than anything else. If they had enough evidence where they had Luis ‘Bang to Rights’ I could have accepted their judgement. But the fact that it’s just so flaky, the faact that their decision was based on ‘Probability’, the fact they had no Evidence and they try to cover there arse by stating that Luis is ‘NOT A RACIST’ just leaves a terrible taste in the mouth and a feeling of embarrasment for the perceprtion of justice by the FA. I feel that LFC and Luis should bring a private suit for malicious intent by these cowards.

  33. think people need to calm down a little bit here. the FA made it clear that suarez was not racist but may have said, in the balance of probabilities, words that were deemed unacceptable.

    that is the long and short of it. If the media focused on this rather than jumping on the racism bandwagon things would be a lot more sane.

  34. Lets move on. If as I suspect the legal advice is that an appeal is doomed then whatever injustices are felt its time to focus on what really matters – the next game.

    With 4 of the next 8 games being cup ties, Luis get a winter break and comes back fresh and with a point to make. Unless there is new evidence of the smoking gun kind any appeal will uphold this decision and may even extend the ban. Even if they don’t the ban will come later in the season and include more PL matches.

    Yes it was harsh, possibly unfair, but lets get off our high horse issue a statement that both makes the club’s opposition to racism clear and backs Luis but reluctantly accepts there is no ground for appeal. (Obviously after tonight so Luis can score the winning goal against City)

  35. Good article that highlights all the inconsistency of the FA. I desperately want Suarez to be found not guilty but with the agenda set I think the FA will leave him out to hang. This has gone well beyond what it should have and with Evra’s own admissions of guilt going unpunished it highlights that the FA’s own rules are open to interpretation and they can move the ‘goal posts’ to suit them. If anybody has been on a football pitch at any level they will be aware of how brutal conversations between opposing players can be and usually it is “six of one half a dozen of the other” regardless to who starts what.
    I find it hard to understand how the FA chose to act on probabilities although I am aware in civil cases that is the norm. If you take your mind back to last season with Wayne rooney’s elbow to james mccarthy close to being assault but no action take.n i feel it is the FA damaging their own reputation

    I now await the John Terry case where he will be able to afford the best barrister to get him off as although the evidence is there the “beyond doubt” card will be played and if a court and jury cant find him guilty the FA will drop there case very quickly.

  36. I was going to write a really long response. But I dont believe LS is a racist, I just think he used a term which in England is not acceptable. The term “Negro” in this country doesnt have the same meaning as it does in another country. But we are not in that country, we are in England.

    Therefore, LS should accept the ban and fine and providing we get through against Oldham, his first game back will be against……..MAN FUCKIN UNITED AT Old Trafford!!

  37. that is if we accept the ban before tonights game.. otherwise it will be spurs at home for his return game which might be a little bit easier for him

    if LS plays tonight, I wonder how much Balotelly and the Toure brothers will try to wind him up.

  38. Correct me if I’m wrong but did King Kenny not say whoever’s found guilty be it Suarez or Evra they should be punished. Suarez has been found guilty. It’s time to move on and show just a modicum of class over this whole sorry affair.

  39. this is utter nonsense…i cannot understand one small thing when suarez himself admitted for using the word negrito then why anyone has a problem with it i dont understand..
    kaushal reading your article makes me think you are sensible but i when suarez has himself admitted to the use of the word negro…
    in his defense he said that its not a racist word in his country…
    lemme ask u smethin..im an indian and if i were to call you or some other friend of mine kaalia(blackie)it is considered friendly humour but suarez and evra were neither playing in India or south africa??
    they were playing in england where it is deemed as a racist term…
    im not here to argue as despite me being a united fan i dont find suarez a racist but he did call evra a negro all facts aside

    1. I’ll try to explain it to you as best as I can.
      Let’s see the agreeable points-
      1. Suarez and Evra were NOT having a friendly conversation
      2. Suarez called Evra a ‘negrito’ or a ‘negro’
      3. They were having the conversation in Spanish.
      4. Evra initiated the conversation, and that too in Spanish.

      With me? Let’s look ahead and use an example-
      Let us say you and me are in India and we are rivaling each other in a game of football or some other sport. For the purpose of the analogy, let us also assume that you are darker in color than I am. During the game, we get charged up and I call you
      1. a ‘kaalu’ (Blacky) or ‘kya sale!’ (What the Fuck!) or whatever else. Friendly? Definitely not. Racist? Again, definitely not.
      2. I may call you something like ‘teri behan ki..’ (Your sister’s…) and would that be racist? Again no. Offensive? Of course yes.
      3. Assume you are from Bengal or Orissa or Bihar and I also call you something like ‘Sale Bihari Bhaiya’ or ‘Bengali’ or ‘Oriya’. Racist? May be not to the T but regionalist, yeah.
      4. Also assume I say ‘maarunga!'(I’ll punch you!). Would that be intimidating in the field of sport? Yes. Acceptable? No.

      Keep everything else same except where we are playing that sport. Instead of that being in India, it is now in England. Would you take racist offense to any of the first category of remarks or still only the third one? Neither my intent or my language changed because of where we are playing nor would your sensitivities suddenly change because you are in a different country. Probably only the fourth remark is region independent and would only depend on the tone of the delivery. Since the setting is that we are in a charged up environment, it’s safe to assume that the fourth one wasn’t delivered amicably. You can substitute ‘you’ and ‘me’ with the protagonists aptly, I think.

      Since you are from India, you will also understand that we do not think of color of skin as racist. On the other hand, things like religion, region and caste are grounds for discrimination. Similarly, Suarez comes from a place where color of skin is only a descriptive subject, not a discriminatory one.

      Although I might risk losing you, I’ll stretch the analogy further. Let’s say an English speaking foreigner comes to India and wants to locate someone to get his shoes mended. If you’re a cobbler and he comes to you and addresses you ‘Hey, Cobbler..’, is he alright or would you simply translate his ‘Cobbler’ to ‘chamaar’ in Hindi and take offense? Neither was the word he used in his language offensive nor was his intent. Only the translation may sound offensive and only to you since from where he is, it makes no difference.


  40. Listen you Liverpool haters,by no way Suarez has been found guilty for a racist crime as it is labelled by the the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

    All in all it was an ambiguous process which came out with a political gesture that convicted Suarez for a crime he didn’t commit,otherwise he would’ve been brought to a criminal court in a first place had he really been found racist which s not the case according to the FA.

    The entire conversation took place in Spanish and linguistic experts Professor Peter Wade and Dr James Scorer from Manchester university who are in no way
    specialized in Uruguayan dialects but only in Colombians’ were present to “help” the 3 man-panel with the meaning of the phrases.

    Two other freaks from the FA were in the secretariat for legal matters and “helped” the panel to come out with this shameful decision based on “balance of probability” used in civil matter instead of the classic proof “beyond the reasonable doubt” used in criminal courts. It sounds like weird and totally biased especially when we’ve been told that Kuyt’s testimony was rejected unfairly on behalf of nothing but insanity.

    Now let’s dig deeper and take a look at the three-man panel who gathered on Wednesday 21th Dec afternoon, the commission was chaired by Paul Goulding QC,who comes from the same Blackstones chambers as Adam Lewis,the barrister employed by the FA in Wayne Rooney’s successful Uefa appeal a month ago. Hummmmmm…

    Goulding, is seen by those who have a political agenda against us as a qualified FA coach!!? And has seemingly advised Premier League clubs and players in the past. Hummm… Which ones please? If only people know…

    Also involved as a second member of the panel, Brian Jones is the chairman of Sheffield and Hallamshire FA, who wrote to all his county members on June 20, stressing the need to fight discrimination.

    Seems to me they worked hard to introduce to us the good guy,someone who is supposed to be above all contingencies? But after a quick review, Brian Jones’ CV is reduced to a simple letter he wrote to his fellow county members and they want us to believe he’s an angel in white,don’t they!?

    Furthermore they want us to believe he’s qualified to deal with such a sensitive issue dealing with foreign culture and involving THE MIGHTY Liverpool, a club that has always took stance against racism.

    The third member is Denis Smith, “well” respected within the game according to some people working the angle. Following his time as a defender at StokeCity and managing clubs such as Sunderland and Oxford United, it appears to me he’s the perfect manservant whose past as a player and manager can be put under scrutiny to outline his strong ties with people from the Elite
    (Oxford+Government) which are pushing for a political agenda in this sensitive issue as a counter attack against Hillsborough case.

    Now I described the three man-panel, a legitimate question springs to mind, who picked them over other personalities more capable of dealing with big clubs and big issues and when did that happen? This is not an innocent question, knowing the process will speak volumes about the decision those people biased or not have made. Someone somewhere must address these questions…

    Still,there will be always some people who will argue your own lawyer hasn’t vetoed the commission panel,so why are you crying out? And here lies the real drama, our legal representative is someone called Mr McCormick. Do you know who the latter is? He was one of a two-man FA commission which ruled against Liverpool in deciding Manure had no legal obligation to sell Gabriel Heinze when the Argentine defender wanted to move to Anfield for £6.8 million in 2007!? Weeeeeird.

    So Mr Heinze had no right to choose his destination, he was just a slave in the hands of his owners according to Mr McCormick whereas Mr Torres had all the rights to move to Chelsea on his first request with no need of any commission as we all saw. Hummm …double standards me thinks…

    Therefore another legitimate question springs to mind, who hired this lawyer and on behalf of what? Who is really at the helm at Liverpool? How many other trojans are still there waiting in the dark to slaughter us at the first opportunity? All these questions must be addressed and sooner the better.

    Nonetheless, at the end of the day this is not an independent regulatory commission as stated by the FA, if it were up to me an independent regulatory commission would’ve included two former big players from big clubs with one of them being black and the third member being a justice to moderate the debate with the due process of law without any freaks from the FA present at the meeting and trying to interfere with the debate (hearing sessions).

    Yet after all this illegal proceedings I am stunned the legal department at LFC has done nothing about that. Worse they didn’t hire the best lawyer around. A good attorney would have said “Mr Suarez, if you make any indication that you used any language that could ever be considered racist, even if it’s Evra who started this mess in a first place you will be crucified.”

    Instead, his lawyer,Mr McCormick, let him say that he did use “negro” but not in the way Evra took it. The way it happened, it wasn’t Evra’s word against Luis’ (which would be very subjective), it was Luis’ meaning against Evra’s. The rules clearly state that meaning doesn’t matter. So why did Mr McCormick not give Suarez the right advice on due time?

    And if some people are wondering why Evra hasn’t been punished evenly for starting the mess, they must refer to section 222 “the decision is limited to the Charge brought.”

    There would have to be a separate charge brought against Evra, unfortunately I’m not sure whether Liverpool would have to file a complaint first. That’s why I say we need another bulldog lawyer to handle this case.

    But what hurts me furthermore is the way the FA ended up considering Evra as a “credible witness” instead of a plaintiff. The latter saw himself benefiting from a complacent description as well. According to the “little fa” report he gave his evidence in a “calm, composed and clear way”, whereas on the contrary of that Suarez isn’t described as a defendant but as only an unreliable witness?! It stinks…

    Despite the fact findings say that Evra admitted that he begun the exchange with Suarez by referring to the Uruguayan’s sister anatomy using harsh words in Spanish,guess what, he just got away with it…

    Suarez’s defense was that he had been called “South American” in a derogatory way by Evra. But the commission added: “We found that Mr Evra did not use the words ‘South American’ when speaking to Mr Suarez.” How do they know I’d say?

    The initial ban according to the rules should’ve been two games that could’ve been extended to four by any commission but 08 games? Come on, this is a ban from living in England not from playing football.

    In their statement the FA were pretty clear about their intentions I quote”Suarez has damaged the image of English football around the world”. Wow, it sounds like a daylight conspiracy to stop our rebuilding process and consequently they’re forcing our hands to get rid of Suarez…

    As a matter of fact it is the FA that damaged the image of football on one hand and justice and fairness on the other hand.

    In UK, racism is treated as a crime according to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which makes hateful behaviour towards a victim based on the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) in a racial group or a religious group an aggravation in sentencing for specified crimes. Of course a “racial group” is a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality(including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.

    That’s why you need a strong evidence “beyond reasonable doubt” to win your case instead of the “balance of probabilities” used in civil matter.

    Moreover, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 requires a court to consider whether a crime which is not specified by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is racially or religiously aggravated.

    And here lies the trickery… in order to make of their case a civil matter the FA worked hard the angle to engineer a conviction in which they stated Suarez is not racist. Pretty smart from them, this was the best way to fashion a conviction not based on the proof “beyond reasonable doubt”. Since Suarez isn’t a racist he consequently can’t be considered as a “crime perpetrator” can he.Hence there’s a little room left to make an appeal. Perfectly managed into the small details by the FA I would say…

    But in that case tell me please, if it is just an issue that has nothing to do with ethnicity and race ( no crime issue involved here) but only an exchange of insults (misconduct) why then the FA did not punish Evra evenly for the same level of harshness since he was the starter of this mess. There’s too much ambiguity here…

    Finally it shows you how far the FA had gone and how disrespectful they were with Suarez, Liverpool FC and their fans in one hand and the due process of law on the other hand…

    However in spite of all this dirty process that led to a shameful conviction, I would ask Suarez not to appeal but only if the other cases of racism are unearthed and the authors are punished regardless of the time and date they took place.I would begin by the recent cases Terry-Ferdinand)one for instance,no double standards could be tolerated here.Let me remind the FA board all Liverpool haters that Ferdinand has said nothing harsh to Terry to deserve his racist posture on the contrary of Evra who caused a great deal of embarrassment to every one related to this case after he admitted he used harsh words about Suarez’s sister anatomy in spanish to get into Suarez’s mind…

    So what I’m asking for is to handle this sensitive issue with the due process of law and not this travesty of justice where one side is held into account whilst the other one is spared unfairly despite the fact it’s the one who started this messy situation in a first place.

    Ultimately the best way to handle this case is to bring it to the high courts imho,and the FA must be charged down the process for defamation and biased judgment.

    And if they do think we will go down without fighting, they’re wrong, we will give them a fearsome fight,a fight they have never experienced before even if we have to storm the FA building, mark my words.

  41. If I were in Luis Suarez’s position i’d be taking this to a court of law. Evra is a lying cheating scumbag, who has probably ruined the career/reputation of one of the best players in the premiership. To be convicted by “probabillity” is just laughable. LFC should not give in to what the FA and semingly all journo’s want, that is to ” move on”. A counter charge should be made against Evra without anymore delay.All said and done, I can’t wait for the twat Evra to play at Anfield again. ;)

  42. One of the more articulate pieces I’ve seen on the matter. Though it does get a bit garbled at the end (I assume because of rage/disgust).

    I was hoping for a clear report that would provide evidence to either find him innocent or guilty. And if truly proven guilty by evidence, then sadly an 8 game ban isn’t enough – he should never wear the shirt again.

    But we didn’t get that. Instead we got an op-ed. Evra was a ‘more impressive’ witness than Suarez. Really? Basing a conviction on performance? You’d think it was the Academy Awards and not an actual court of law where actual evidence is required. Pity.

  43. Alternatively, how about we try arguing that Luis Suarez should never say negrito to anyone ever again, you bunch of one-eyed wankers?

    PS If you’re writing 2000 words on a website like this you really do need to get a job.

Comments are closed